WHAT you are hard at work Do­ctor, well! Does the Philosophers Stone appear yet? You'll never leave off till you have lost your Brains, and your Money; for generally this is the ef­fect of your Study, Poverty, and Madness; for I never knew any of you but dy'd Beggars; tho' once perhaps Masters of plentiful Fortunes, [Page 4] and this is enough to drive any Man out of his Wits. Come, come, be advis'd by a Friend, leave of this foolish Study, lay aside this ima­ginary Philosophers-Stone, and apply thy Wits in some thing that is substantial and advanta­gious.

Why faith Merriman, I am almost weary on't, for after so many Years of hard Study, and the throwing away my Money, my Time, and my Brains, (as thou say'st,) when I thought I was upon the point of having the Philosophers-Stone in my hand, some unlucky Accident or other turn'd all into Smoak, and I was to begin again.

What's here, the Method to Science and Solid Philosophy by J. S. ha,—ha,—ha.—

Ay! Have you seen them? They are inge­nious Pieces I can assure you, and the Author is a Man of parts; he has found out that which no Man since the Creation cou'd find out but him­self; Nay, nor never had been found out, had not the Divine Providence made choice of him above all Men of the World to Midwife into the World this wondrous Child, his Method to Science.

A wondrous Child indeed, a wondrous Monster, fram'd in his own Brain, that has neither Head, nor Tail; ugly, and deform'd in every part of it: The Beats can lick their Cubs into some shape, but he can never lick this Whelp of his into any.

Have you read the Book Merriman, or do you only speak the malicious words of J.S's Enemies?

Yes, I have read it, and read it, and studied to find out something of sense in it, and still cou'd meet with nothing but Non­sense. I'll tell you, it looks as if it had been writ by Oliver's Porter in Bedlam, 'tis just like a Quakers Sermon, take it in pieces and you'l find a great many good sayings in it; but take it all together 'tis a piece of Nonsense. And this you call a wondrous Child, and product of Mr. J. S's Brain, and brought to light by the Divine Providence, as he proudly and vainly tells us, I must tell you Doctor, the expression out of his his Mouth nauseates, and smells rank of Blas­phemy.

'Tis strange Merriman, that because you cannot comprehend his Demonstrations, that therefore you'll run down the Book for Non­sense.

'Tis much more strange Doctor, that you who wou'd be thought a Man of sense, shou'd justifie and approve such Paradoxes as his Book contains: Why, what's more nonsen­sical then to see a fellow in an Age of dotage, with one foot in the Grave, peep out, and with a speaking Trumpet tell the World they are all Fools and Coxcombs; that there is not one Man of Sense to be found in it, and that there never was a Philosopher till J. S. appear'd, and that he was sent by the Divine Providence to teach the World (which was lost in ignorance) the Method to Science. Does not all this look like a Man come out of Bedlam, who thinks every Man mad but himself? And wou'd not one take him for the Ass in the Fable, who had hid himself some time in a Pit, and at last comes out very gravely in a Philosophers Cloak: His Master ask'd him where he had been so long? And he an­swer'd, that all that time he had apply'd himself to the study of Philosophy, and that he was become a very great proficient, and Doctor, but for all his boasting of his Science, his Cloak was no sooner pull'd off, but every one knew him to be an Ass; and so he was severely chastiz'd for his lying and vaunting.

Come, come, Merriman, this is all Ma­lice, and putting upon J. S. Why can you be­lieve that a Man of his Sense, Learning, and Piety, can be so senseless and pron'd as to run down all Mankind as sensless Animals that had never learnt his Method to Science? Or, that there never was any true Philosophy till he ap­pear'd in the World?

Nay Doctor, 'tis far from Malice, or putting upon him, for I have Demonstration for what I say; his own words Doctor, and that is Demonstration enough. Seeing Philosophy reduced to this lamentable condition, Alass poor Philosophy! and that solid rationality, and all truth in natural Objects were thus in eminent dan­ger to be over-run, and born down by imaginary Con­ceits; and apprehending that God's Providence had fitted and enabled me J. S. to redress such great Mischiefs; O brave J. S. I thought it became me to reinstate Reason in her Soveraignty over fancy. Sol. Phil. Ep. Ded. p. 8. and in the Preface he says, Indeed I must own I have a high opinion of my Prin­ciples, and my Method, which Nature and God's good Providence have lay'd and established, pa. 11. What think you of this? Is not all this Lucife­rian Pride! For my part I am so far from be­lieving [Page 8] him to be appointed by the Divine Pro­vidence to be the Worlds Master, and to teach them this New Philosophy, that I begin to suspect him to have a Cloven Foot, and that no body but the Devil set him on work.

The truth of it is, he does infinitely a­bound on his own Sense, and it was always his fault, which has drawn him into a great ma­ny Follies, which hath occasion'd him many disturbances; I wish he had been advis'd and either have writ more modestly, or not at all.

How is it possible Doctor for this Man to be advis'd, who judges all other Men Fools, and himself the only wise Man in the World! He tells you, that the World has been sufficiently pester'd already with Books of Philosophy, nay, Vo­lums blown up to a vast bulk with windy and frothy Probabilities, and petty inconclusive Topicks. Pre­face to Solid Philosophy, ibid. and who writ these vast Volums, that contain'd nothing but windy, frothy, Probabilities; only the greatest Wits and Masters in the World, but ('tis no matter, they are all Fools co Mr. S.) but behold now in this latter Age appears a wonder, a Man that speaks no windy, frothy, Probabilities, nor [Page 9] petty inconclusive Topicks; but as often as He opens his mouth speaks Demonstrations, and no Man can see them but himself.

Whose fault is that Mr. Merriman? If Men will not see when the Demonstration lies before them, that's no fault of Mr. J. S. but if Men wou'd not be prejudic'd, and wou'd but open their Eyes and look through Mr J. S's pro­spective, they wou'd see Demonstrations fly from his Mouth and Pen as thick as Attomes; but let another Man speak, and then you shall behold nothing but windy frothy Probabilities. O he is certainly a rare Man in this Art of Demon­stration; Good man, with what tenderness and compassion he speaks of the World's ignorance, and blindness. Alass! says he, how few Men are there who will profess to demonstrate in Philosophy, or to reduce their Discourses to Evidence? Ibid. p. 13. Without doing which, and abiding by the Tryal, perhaps there is not one word of truth in all Philosophy, nor any thing but learn'd Romance in all the Ʋniversities of Europe. And will not you say then that the World was reduc'd to a deplorable condition, and that he had good reason for wri­ting and publishing his Method to Science, and his Silod Philosophy?

I must confess Doctor, that if his say­ing be a Demonstrotion of the Worlds igno­rance, it was in a miserable condition. Alass poor World! Not a word of truth in all Philosophy, nor nothing but learned Romance in all the Ʋniversi­ties of Europe? A sad business Doctor upon my word; and alass this must all be true according to J. S. For how possibly cou'd the Philosophers and the Ʋniversities of Europe profess to demon­monstrate in Philosophy, or reduce their Discourses to Evidence, who were totally ignorant of J. S's Method to Science; and consequently had no Solid Philosophy. Poor ignorant World! What a blessing is't, that the Divine Providence shou'd send a Man at last to inform our ignorance, and teach us the way of Truth, what not one word of Truth, and nothing but learned Romance among so many learn'd Men, and so many famous Universi­ties? Why, this is the Devil, who can believe it? I'll tell you what Doctor, this requires a swinging Demonstration, the World will never believe it else; and I suppose he writ to be be­lieved. I'll tell you what, it sounds very harsh to tell any one Man that he is a Fool, but to go about to demonstrate him so, is certainly the part of a Madman, for no Man desires to be thought a Fool, tho' he be one; but for a Man [Page 11] to go about to demonstrate all the learned Men that are, and ever have been in the World, to be a company of empty, windy, frothy Fools and not to have one word of Truth or Solid Philosophy amongst them, is the part of a Man distracted. Faith Doctor, the best way for your friend J. S. to come off, of this business, is to say he was intoxi­cated when he writ these Books, for they smell rank of the fumes of an intoxicated Brain.

Well, but if he makes all this out by a clear Demonstration, what will you say to him then? For there is not one thing that he asserts, but he demonstrates.

Ay, so he tell us. 'Tis granted, there cannot be a clearer proof of a thing then when it is clear'd by Demonstration; but do you or any Man in the World see this Demonstration of his, does it appear evident to you, that you are a windy, fro­thy Fool, and that there is not one word of Truth in all you say, or write, and ask the same question of all the learned Philosophers, and fa­mous Ʋniversities in Europe; and they'll all tell you they see nothing of it, and that nothing but a Man distracted wou'd assert such a non­sensical Proposition. Now to demonstrate, and no Man to see the Demonstration, is a Paradox [Page 12] that no one cou'd be the Author of but J. S. ask my Lord D. to whom he dedicates his Book, if he believed himself a Blockhead be­fore he read J. S's Method to Science, or his So­lod Philosophy, and see what he'll say to you? Well, so much for Ep. and Pref. Now let us have a touch at his Method to Science, and his Solid Philosophy, and observe a little what Para­doxes we shall meet with there, for I can assure you he is a Man that does infinitely abound with them.

And I'll warrant you'll call his Defini­tion of Notion a Paradox, for which I can assure you he values himself highly; a Notion (says he) is the very thing it self existing in my understanding, (and this he says) is so manifestly true, that were it otherwise, it is impossible any Man living shou'd know any thing at all. What think you of this? Solid Philo. p. 27. §. 3.

What think I of it? Why I cannot but laugh to see the Ass mumble Thistles, tho' they prick his chops he will be doing with them; he tells you he foresaw the World wou'd laugh at him for a Man of Paradoxes, at the first view of this Proposition; but for all that he was in mighty pain till he was deliver'd of it, tho' he were sure to be laught at, and he is much in the [Page 13] right of it; for I can assure him, he has had as many laughers as have read his Book: Well, I'll say that for him he's a bold Britain, he sets the World at defiance, let all the wise Men say and think what they will, if this Proposition is not true, every Man's a Fool, for 'tis impossible he shou'd know any thing. Give me leave Doctor, this is a dangerous Man to live in a Common­wealth, a Man can call nothing his own that this Man gets a Notion of. Why, if a Man has a pretty Daughter, or a handfome Wife, he no sooner gets a Notion of them, but whip they'r gone; he has them himself, in the twink­ling of a Bedstaff. He comes into a Pasture where there are Droves of fat Bullocks, Flocks of Sheep, Heards of Swine; why, he no sooner sees them, but slap, he sweeps them all away: Show him a Gold Watch, a Diamond Ring, a Rope of Pearl, a Purse of Gold, he no sooner gets a Notion of them, but whipshius, doxious, they are all gone, he has them all in his possessi­on. And this he thinks may be a subject matter of laughter; whatever others have had, I'm sure I have had my belly full, I have not laugh'd so this seven Years: Bless me! That 'tis possible for an Old Man to be so rediculous; I'll tell you Doctor, I wou'd have you advise him to set up [Page 14] for a Conjurer, I fancy he wou'd make a rare one, does he not look something like one? I fancy he does?

Come you are merry, you are merry, Mr. Merriman; I see you have not your Name for nothing, why do you think that because he has these Real Substantial Things really in his Head, that he carries them away with him, and they remain no longer where they were when he had his Notion of them? No, no, tho' he has them all really in his Head, or Understanding, they still remain where first he conceiv'd a No­tion of them, he does not carry them away with him, that is a gross conception indeed.

Hold a little Doctor, what signifies a Notion, if a Man does not carry it away with him? Now if these Substantial Bodies really remain where they were before his Notion of them, how possibly cou'd these Real Substanti­al Bodies be in his Head! Unless you'll say that a Substantial Body can naturally be in a Thou­sand places at the same time, which is as great a Paradox as the other; give me leave Doctor to ask you a question, J. S. comes into a Field of Asses, and he no sooner sees them but he con­ceives a Notion of them, he goes home having conceived, does he carry the Asses along with [Page 15] him, or no? Or, do they still remain in the Field where he first conceived them?

Why, they still remain in the Field, tho' he have a true Notion of them.

Very pretty, but how does this stand then with J. S's. Definition of Notion, for Notion (says he) is the very Ass it self, no like­ness or Idea, but the pure Animal with all its Modes. Now if he has carried the Beasts home with him, they are not in the Field; if they are still in the Field, it will prove a false con­ception, and the Notion will become Abortive: And then what will become of poor J. S. for if he looseth his Notion, he looseth all? If the very Asses are not in his Head, 'tis Demonstra­tion he has nothing in his Head; and for my part I shall never believe they are there, till I hear Him Bray. I have heard of some Men who have had Maggots and Worms in their Heads, and these little Animals deprived them of the use of Reason, they were little better then Fools; what must we say then of a Man whose Head is filled with Bulls, Bears, and Asses? Is not this a likely Man to make Demonstrati­ons, and teach the World the Method to Sci­ence and Solid Philosophy?

Why prethee Merriman, this is all sham, and banter; I hate to see a Man of parts run down at this rate without Rime, or Reason; he produces no less then fifteen Demonstrations to prove his Deposition and you fall a laughing, and cry 'tis nonsense; is this a rational way of Arguing.

Doctor, when a Man tells me that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, and that the Starrs are in the Centre of the Earth, that eve­ry Man walks with his heels upwards, that a Man has not free Will, wou'd you have me to discourse this man rationally? No, I laugh at him, and think he is only fit to be ty'd up to a Rack and fed with Hay, as you do a Horse; but because you desire it, I answer to his first Demonstration. When I simply apprehend the Thing, or any Mode or Accident of it, this Operation of my Ʋnderstanding is within my mind, (says J. S.) and compleated there. Sol. Phil. p. 29. I grant it: Therefore the Thing apprehended, which is the Ob­ject of that Operation must be there likewise, ibid. I distinguish: The Thing apprehended must be there likewise, Apprehensively, Intellectually, or Representively I grant him; and this we call an Idea of the Thing; but that the House, the City, the Ass, apprehended, is Really and Sub­stantially [Page 17] in the Understanding, I deny: And now where is his Demonstration, and all his other Demonstrations? For they are all built upon this Bottom, and the consequence is so extravigantly absur'd, that it deserves no other Argument then laughter: But come no more of this, let us to another Paradox.

Come let us hear what other Paradox have you found out?

Why, what think you of this: That it is infinitely more impossible, an Angel shou'd be changed by God after the first Instant, then by any other Spirit. Method to Science, p. 309. 310, 311, 313. And what he says of an Angel, the same consequently he says of a separated Soul. What think you of this, is not this a notori­ous Paradox? What does this Man mean? Was Lucifer and his fellow Angels the first In­stant created in a State of Grace, or no? Are they still in that State? If not, how comes this Change? It cou'd not be from God (says J. S,) all his Power cou'd not make it, nor from the Angels themselves, nor from any other Spirit, or Creature whatever. And yet a notorious Change is made, even from the State of Grace, to the State of Sin. From a State of Bliss, and Glory, to the State of Damnation. From the State of a [Page 18] glorious Angel of Light, to a damn'd Devil, condemn'd to eternal Darkness. From a good Angel in Heaven, to a black Devil envellop'd in eternal Torments. These are eternal Truths Doctor, deliver'd to us by an eternal Wisdom, infinitely beyond J. S's Paradoxes, which he has the impudence to call Demonstrations. These are such demonstrative Truths I tell you, that they cannot be deni'd without renouncing the Christian Faith. And yet J. S. is that bold Man who has done it, can I say then any thing more modest of him then that the Man dotes in his Old Age?

But to come off of this Point, supposing he shou'd deny that Lucifer and the fallen Angels were created in the State of Grace, and Glory, where are you then? Then your Argument falls to the ground.

Why, if this be his way of coming off, the last error will be worse then the first; here he will make God a Tyrant, to create such an infinite of noble Spirits for no other end then Damnation. No, no, I can never believe (tho' he is a bold Man) that he will be so bold to strike at the Attributes of God in this Nature. How­ever, he has drawn a bold stroak for the Deists, and Atheists; He has clear'd Hell of all the De­vils, [Page 19] not a Devil to be found there, co' J. S. For if God with all his Power cou'd make no Change in the Angels, after the first Instant of their Cre­ation, nor they cou'd make none in themselves by their Pride vainly thinking to raise them­selves to the equality of a God, then they must still be in Heaven, where they were in the first Instant of their Creation, if in Heaven, 'tis clear they are not in Hell; and if they are not in Hell, then there is no Hell; for no Devil, no Hell. Thank you good Mr. S. co' Mr Athiest, if your Doctrine be true, we fear no Devils, that we have been Bug-bear'd with so long: Your humble servant good Mr J. S.

But what do you say he holds the same opinion of the separated Souls? I don't remem­ber it.

The very same Doctor, but this is an old Mumpsimus of his old Father Blacklo, which he is reviveing for fear the old Gentleman shou'd be forgotten. It was his opinion that the separated Souls in their intermediate State were not to be deliver'd thence till the Day of Judgment, till the re-union of the Soul and Bo­dy, and his reason was, because a pure Spirit cou'd admit of no Change; but his Scholar has out-done the Master, goes a step farther; [Page 20] and tells you that by the Omnipotent Power of God they cannot be free'd thence. God (says J. S.) withall his Power cannot do it, nor all the Sacrisices and Prayers of the Church ef­fect it.

Why, Merriman, at this rate you'll per­suade me that he denies praying for the Dead, which to my certain knowledge is false; for I my self have seen him take Money, and good found Summs to pray for the Souls departed.

If he does, he's a damn'd cheat, to take the Peoples Money to pray for that, which he belives is impossible to be obtain'd: No, not by the Omnipotent Power of God. For accor­ding to his Principle his Prayers can neither re­lieve them out of Prison, nor in the least miti­gate their pains, and sufferings. God (says he) tho' all powerful, cannot possibly Change their State. These poor people are bravely help'd up with such Mens Prayers: Well, he's a rare fellow, this is your learned S. Deliver me from such Doctors.

Fellow! But why fellow? Prethee Mer­riman treat the Gentleman with civiler Lan­guage, and be not so unmannerly, for I can assure you he stands very fair in the Eyes of a great many Men, whatever your Judgment may be of him.

I am sorry for it Doctor, Yes faith hear­tily sorry for it; for that renders him the more dangerous Man, and as for my unmannerlyness, I think I treat him but too civilly, who is so un­mannerly to all Mankind, Nay, even to God himself. What shall I call a Man that goes a­bout to rob God of his chief Attributes! But let us proceed.

What think you of this, 'tis a piece of drudge­ry (says J. S.) misbecoming the Essence of God to be the Immediate Cause of Motion or Change. Meth. to Science, Appen. p. 404. §. 26.

I do remember the expression, and was displeas'd with it when I read it.

Pray tell me Doctor, who was it that created the Angels, was it not God? Nay, was it not God who was the immediate Cause of this Change. If he were not, pray assign me who or what was, for we hear of nothing but God that had a Being before the Angels; or was there here any Change made? Glorious Spirits brought to light out of a confus'd Chaos of nothing. If this was a Change, it cou'd not possibly be made but by the immediate hand of God; be­cause, there was then no other Cause or Being but God to cause this Change; when a Sinner is converted, and becomes of a Child of the Devil, [Page 22] the Child of God. Is this a Change or no? If it be, who was the Cause of it? Not God (says J. S.) 'tis drudgery misbecoming the Essence of God to be the immediate Cause of such a Conversion or Change. Was this Change made without the immediate Operation of the Holy Ghost? If the Divine Grace was necessary for such a Change, by what hand was it immediately convey'd to the Soul, but by God's? for I never heard in all my Di­vinity, that either Men or Angels could give or be the dispenser of God's saving or sanctifying Grace. Pray Doctor when you see your friend J.S. tell him he wou'd do much better to apply him­self to the Study of true and solid Divinity, then thus to puzzle his Brain with his New Ima­ginary Philosophy: For a learned Doctor of Oxford being ask what he thought of S's Method to Science, said, that 'tis a piece of unintellible Non­sense; and yet this Man with all his Nonsense sets up to teach all the World. Pray good Mr. Doctor, did God make Man or no? Or was it an Angel, or some thing else that made him! If he did, was there any Change or Motion made when this Thing called Man was made? Who was it that formed this piece of Earth with a rational Soul, was it not God? And was there no Change made here by the immediate hand of [Page 23] God. A piece of Earth made an intelligible rational moving Creature, was this the imme­diate work of God or an Angel; No, it was a drudgery (says J. S.) misbecoming God to be the immediate Cause of such a Change as this. Poor S. I am sorry for thee with all my heart, that thou pretendest to so much Philosophy, and art so prodigiously ignorant in Divinity. Why, hark you Doctor, did this Man ever read the Holy Scriptures? If he had, he wou'd have found there, how that God in the beginning created Heaven and Earth: Let us make Man (says God) to our own Image and likeness, Gen. c. 1. and the whole Chapter tells us how God is the immediate Cause of the whole Creati­on; and was all this done without Motion or Change? What stuff what nonsense is this? I protest Doctor I am ashamed of such Para­doxes as these from a Man that pretends to Sense or Religion; I can assure you his way of demonstrating shews him to be a Man of nei­ther.

So, so, Merriman, this is very fine to run down a Man of his parts at this rate; why do you imigine that if these Paradoxes of his (as you call them) had been so absur'd as you are pleas'd to make them, that the Learned Zea­lous [Page 24] Reverend Bishops had not taken notice of them, and damn'd them before this time of day; why are you Mr. Merriman the only di­scerning Man in England to Judge and Damn M. S's. Principles in the Method to Science and Solid Philosophy.

Nay prethee Doctor don't trouble me with the Bishops not taking notice of his Non­sense, and Paradoxes; perhaps they have not read his Books, and if they have, if they will be negligent in their Duty, what is that to me? I am not to answer for them, but I am to an­swer before God, if I see a Man running down Piety, Religion, and God himself, if I do not Detect the Villany, and stem the Tide; at least put a helping hand to it, if it be in my Province. I'll tell you Doctor, Novelties in Re­ligion are Monsters, that every good Man ought to be up in Arms against to destroy them, for fear they shou'd destroy us.

Why can you imagin that he has sent these Books into the World without the Bishops knowledge? No, he is a better Man then so, to send any thing abroad that may lye under a Censure without their Approbation.

I wish he were a better Man then he is, Ay faith, heartily wish it, and if he has had the [Page 25] Bishops opprobation, he has the less to answer for, and they the more: But come let us to a­nother Point.

Another Paradox you mean.

I do so, you are much in the right of it. Nay, 'tis what he himself Judges the World will take it for, not only a Paradox, but a very wild one, and little less than Blasphemy; that is, if he shou'd deny that God can annihilate. But be­hold the good Man immediately at this thought bounceth into Rapture and tells us, that out of the profound and dutiful Reverence I bear to his Wisdome, Goodness, and Power, I must declare it is my Tenet that he cannot; any more than he can witness a Falshood, or be liable to any other imper­fection. Solid Philo. p. 184. §. 11. I remem­ber Spondanus tells us that this was one of John Wickleff's errors, that God cou'd not annihilate any thing; which was condemn'd with his other He­retical Articles in the General Council of Const. Quos omnes Synodus rursum diligenter examina­tos perpetuo decreto damnavit. Annal. Spondan. Anno. Christi. 1415. N. 43. 'Tis no matter, tho' eternally damn'd by the Synod. J. S. must declare that he is of John Wickleff's opinion, 'tis positively his Tenet. Now the question is Do­ctor, whether J. S. or John Wickleff is the bet­ter [Page 26] Christian, was the opinion damnable in John Wickleff, and Catholick in J. S? What think you of this Doctor, this is a Paradox with the Devil at the tail on't?

Hold, hold, Mr. Merriman, not so fast, pray hear his Reason. You judge (says he) that this limits, and consequently, takes away the Om­nipotency of God. But I, (says he) on the contra­ry think I have far more reason to judge, that the other Opinion argues Impotency, and ours settles his Omnipotency. Omnipotency, (says Mr. S.) Is a Power of doing all things: And not of doing no­thing. To Act, is to do something; and therefore to do nothing or make a nothing (which is the Sense of Annihilation) is not to do.

Omnipotency is a Power of doing all things, (says J. S.) I say Omnipotency is a Power of doing all things or not doing, what God pleaseth; tho' it is in his Power to do, what he is pleas'd not to do. 'Tis in the Power of God to create another World, besides this. But God does not create it, is he therefore less powerful? No, before God created the World, was he less powerful then he is now? No, and yet it was in his choice, whether he wou'd create it or no. God, we say, was creating from all eter­nity; and yet nothing was created but in time. [Page 27] Now, because God does not create as many Worlds as J. S. wou'd have him, therefore, co' he, he is an idle God and does nothing. To act (says he) is to do something, and therefore to do nothing, or make a nothing, (which says he is the sense of Annihilation) is not to do. I positively deny that this is the sense of Annihilation, who­ever understood that to annihilate was to make a nothing, but J. S.? No; no, to annihilate requires no more in God, then to with-hold his all-protcteing hand, and what Gods Provi­dence is pleased no longer to support, and pro­tect, that momet ceaseth to be, and is disolved into its first nothing. As for example, I hold a Glass in my hand, then (says J. S.) you do some­thing. I do not hold the Glass; then (says he,) I hold nothing, I do nothing. But by my not holding the Glass, the Glass falls, and is broken and destroy'd. How! By my doing something or nothing? call it what you please, the Glass is broken, and destroy'd, by my not holding it in my hand. So the great Omnipotent Cre­ator, holds this great Globe the World. 'Tis in his power to let it go, or hold it fast, is it not? if he is necessitated to hold it fast, then we are not oblig'd to him for his protection; if his Divine Providence will hold it no longer [Page 28] but let it fall; will it not be disolv'd to its first nothing, and so become annihilated. If not, why then the World can subsist without Gods Providence; which according to my Divinity is Blasphemy; but according to J. S. 'tis a pro­found and dutyful reverence he bears to the Wisdom, Goodness, and Power of God. So that suppo­sing God should with-hold his hand from the protection of some little Animal, and by this Cessation of Gods Providence over this Creature, it becomes annihilated: Mr. J. S. immediately falls out with God Almighty, and roars against his Wisdom, Goodness, and Power; and so he fairly takes his leave of his God, that he had such a profound reverence for.

But does not the tell you that God is a pure actuallity of Being, actually and ever exer­cised, and undetermined to Act; that Actual Existence being essential to him, his peculiar effect is, to give Existence, or to create things; and to conserve them in being, which is a perpetual Creation, or Creation continued; and therefore, that 'tis more diametrically opposit to his Nature, to cause a Not Being, then it is for Light to cause Darkness.

And is God Doctor Chymist a less actu­ality of Being, because he did not create the World, or demonstrate the Effects and ad extra [...] [Page 29] of his eternal Creating just that critical Minute that J.S. wou'd have had him? or does God cease to be a Good, Wise, Powerful creating God, because at his pleasure he with draws his pro­tecting hand from some inconsiderable Fly, or Worm. But after all, the question is not as to matter of Fact, whether God will with-hold his hand from conserving some inconsiderable Insect; and suffer it to perish, and be annihi­lated. But the question is peremtorily, whe­ther God of his Omnipotent Power can possibly do it, if he so pleases; and J. S. answers posi­tively that tho' it may seem to the World a wild Pa­radox, and little less then Blasphemy that it is his Tenet that he cannot. Now Doctor, what is the meaning of all this, what can be the design of belching forth such Blasphemies, such wild Pa­radoxes, such unheard of Novelties, such mon­sters in Religion? I'll tell you what Doctor, it looks with a very ill Face, as if the Man in his Old Age had a Mind to start a New Religion, and leave it behind him for the giddy-headed World to puzzle their Brains, and run Mad after. I remember we read that the Athenians made a Law that whoever proposed any thing New to be inserted as a Law in the Common-Wealth, was to do it with a Rope about his [Page 30] neck, to let him know that if the Senate did not approve of the Novelty, he was immedi­ately to be hanged. And what shall we say of such Men who are introducing such monsterous Novelties into Christian Religion, so notoriously to the dishonour of God, and Christianity? All Hereticks (says Tert.) promise Reason and Knowledge; all of them assail Faith with Humane Ʋnderstanding. But God teacheth us another way, which is to adore his Misteries with submission of Spirit, and make of our own proper Judgments a Sacrifice on the Altar of our Faith. If J. S. would do thus, he wou'd not thus foolishly perplex his old Head, and the World with his New Method of Paradoxes, and Nonsensical Phi­losophy.

This is very sharp, Merriman, upon Mr. J. S. prethee why so angry?

I'll tell you Doctor, I think I am not sharp enough in a Cause of this Nature, where Gods Honour, and the purity of Christian Religi­on is so desperately struck at. Besides this is not the first time that he has been playing these tricks; he is conjuring up the old Devil in Phi­losophy, that he formerly raised in some of his Treatises of Divinity. But I will not expose him more then needs must; I'll let his old Er­rors [Page 31] sleep in Oblivion, since they have been suf­ficiently handled by the Ar. Bp. of Dub. and damn'd by some of the Faculty of Sorbon.

Damn'd by some of the Faculty of Sor­bon, do you say? This is what I never heard before.

Yes; yes, damn'd by some of the Fa­culty of Sorbon, and in these Terms, that three Propositions of his cou'd not possibly be expli­cated in a Catholick Sense. If you desire to see the Propositions come to my House and I will shew you them.

Well, Merriman, I'm resolved I'll ac­quaint Mr. S. of all you have said of him, and I'll warrant you he'll give you a Rowland for your Oliver.

Ay, do, and spare not Doctor, I have said all this I can assure you, on purpose that you might tell him; perhaps it may do the Man some good. And if he desire to know my Habi­tation, you may tell him also, I live next door to Dr. H. if he asks on which side on him; Answ. on the Thumb side. If he asks in what Street; Answ. King-street. If where is that King-street; Answ. In High-Holbourn. If where is High-Holbourn; Answ. At the West-end of Lon­don. If where is London; Answ. About the [Page 32] middle of England. And if where is England; in such a part of Europe; if where is Europe? Answ. In the North-West part of the Earth. Me­thod to Science, p. 92. And thus Directed, he will not fail of finding out Your Humble Servant, Robbin Merriman.

But why all these Particulars?

Why this is to shew you, that I am well read in J. S's Method to Science. This is his very Direction to find out that Skilful Dr. H. And so my Noble Doctor, good Night.